[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 21, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-23332]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: September 21, 1994]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-458]

 

River Bend Station; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 
Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. 
NPF-47 issued to Entergy Operations, Inc. (the licensee), for operation 
of the River Bend Station, located in West Feliciana Parish.
    The proposed amendment would revise the formula for calculating the 
average power range monitor (APRM) flow biased simulated thermal power-
high reactor trip and flow biased neutron flux-upscale control rod 
block trip setpoints T-factor specified in Technical Specification (TS) 
3/4.2.2. The proposed changes are necessary to support implementation 
of recommendations contained in NRC Generic Letter 94-02, ``Long-Term 
Solutions and Upgrade of Interim Operating Recommendations for Thermal-
Hydraulic Instabilities in Boiling Water Reactors.''
    Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission 
will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (the Act) and the Commission's regulations.
    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment 
request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the 
Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of 
the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; 
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As 
required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), a licensee has provided its analysis of 
the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented 
below:

    1. The request does not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    This change only redefines the APRM setpoints T-factor. The 
modified APRM setpoints T-factor does not change or affect operator 
required actions in relation to the APRM setpoints T-factor and is 
only applied at different power peaking for given reactor power. 
Therefore, this change only affects the precursors to events that 
can be initiated as a result of different power peaking. The only 
event affected is the formation of coupled thermal-hydraulic and 
neutronic oscillations (reactor stability). Since the modified APRM 
setpoints T-factor allows power distributions which permits the 
application of stability controls to increase stability margin, the 
probability for initiation of reactor instability is significantly 
reduced. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability of any event previously evaluated.
    The consequence of a reactor instability event is minimized 
since the initial reactor conditions are associated with very stable 
power distributions. These stable conditions are established using 
stability controls which are permitted with the modified APRM 
setpoints T-factor. Since the initial reactor conditions are very 
stable, the severity of a postulated reactor instability event is 
significantly diminished. In addition, the modified APRM setpoints 
T-factor is confirmed to provide adequate LHGR [linear heat 
generation rate] protection at off-rated conditions for other 
anticipated events. Protection of other thermal limits for all 
previously analyzed events is accomplished by specific limits that 
are independent of the APRM setpoints T-factor. These are the power 
and flow dependent MCPR [minimum critical power ratio] Operating 
Limits which provide protection from fuel dryout and the rated 
MAPLHGR [maximum average planar linear heat-generation rate] limit 
which provides protection of the peak clad temperature for the DBA 
[design-basis accident] LOCA [loss-of-coolant accident]. Therefore, 
the proposed changes does not involve a significant increase in the 
consequences of any event previously evaluated.
    The proposed change in APRM setpoints T-factor permits 
implementation of appropriate reactor stability controls and 
maintains adequate off-rated LHGR margin for all operating 
conditions. This change, therefore, does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability and consequences of any event previously 
evaluated.
    2. The request does not create the possibility of occurrence of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    This change only redefines the APRM setpoints T-factor. The 
proposed changes do not involve any new modes of operation or any 
plant modifications. The ability to implement reactor stability 
controls do not result in any new precursors to an accident. 
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a 
new or different type of accident from any accident previously 
analyzed.
    3. The request does not involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety.
    The change in the APRM setpoints T-factor definition allows the 
implementation of reactor stability controls during reactor 
operation at off-rated conditions which significantly improve the 
reactor stability performance. This is accomplished by achieving 
very stable power distributions outside the stability excluded 
region. Since the initial reactor conditions are very stable, the 
severity of a postulated reactor instability event is significantly 
diminished.
    The modified APRM setpoints T-factor accommodates higher power 
peaking to support the required stability controls. The modified 
APRM setpoints T-factor has been confirmed to provide adequate LHGR 
protection. Operation with higher peaking without APRM gains or flow 
bias trip setpoints adjustment does not involve a reduction in a 
margin of safety because the higher power peaking resulting from the 
APRM setpoints T-factor modification are below applicable LHGR 
limits. For power peaking conditions that result in APRM setpoints 
T-factor less than one, an adjustment to the APRM gains or trip 
setpoints is made to provide additional LHGR protection. 
Additionally, an upper bound is placed on power peaking by the 
modified APRM setpoints T-factor definition. Therefore, the modified 
APRM setpoint T-factor does not involve a reduction in a margin of 
safety because the higher power peaking resulting from the APRM 
setpoints T-factor modification is below applicable LHGR limits.
    Protection of other thermal limits for all previously analyzed 
events is accomplished by specific limits that are independent of 
the T-factor. These are the power and flow dependent MCPR Operating 
Limits which provide protection from fuel dryout and the rated 
MAPLHGR limit which provides protection of the peak clad temperature 
for the DBA LOCA. The proposed change does not result in an increase 
in core damage frequency. Therefore, the proposed change does not 
involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety evaluated.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes the determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of the 30-day notice period. However, should circumstances 
change during the notice period such that failure to act in a timely 
way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility, 
the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of 
the 30-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that 
the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The final 
determination will consider all public and State comments received. 
Should the Commission take this action, it will publish in the Federal 
Register a notice of issuance and provide for opportunity for a hearing 
after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this 
action will occur very infrequently.
    Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Rules Review and 
Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications 
Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555, and should cite the publication date and page 
number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be 
delivered to Room 6D22, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. 
Copies of written comments received may be examined at the NRC Public 
Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 
20555.
    The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
    By October 21, 1994, the licensee may file a request for a hearing 
with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility 
operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this 
proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding 
must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to 
intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene 
shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice 
for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested 
persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714 which is 
available at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman 
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555 and at the local 
public document room located at Government Documents Department, 
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803. If a request 
for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above 
date, the Commission or an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, 
designated by the Commission or by the Chairman of the Atomic Safety 
and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; 
and the Secretary or the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
will issue a notice of hearing or an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following factors: (1) The nature of the petitioner's right under the 
Act to be made party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of 
the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the 
proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order which may be 
entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition 
should also identify the specific aspect(s) of the subject matter of 
the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene. Any person 
who has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been 
admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of 
the Board up to 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference 
scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy 
the specificity requirements described above.
    Not later than 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference 
scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to 
the petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions 
which are sought to be litigated in the matter. Each contention must 
consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be 
raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner shall provide a 
brief explanation of the bases of the contention and a concise 
statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the 
contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the 
contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references 
to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is 
aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those 
facts or expert opinion. Petitioner must provide sufficient information 
to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material 
issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within 
the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be 
one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A 
petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these 
requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be 
permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and cross-
examine witnesses.
    If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The 
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held.
    If the final determination is that the amendment request involves 
no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the 
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the 
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance 
of the amendment.
    If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a 
significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place 
before the issuance of any amendment.
    A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must 
be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Services 
Branch, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room, 
the Gelman Building 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555, by the 
above date. Where petitions are filed during the last 10 days of the 
notice period, it is requested that the petitioner promptly so inform 
the Commission by a toll-free telephone call to Western Union at 1-
(800) 248-5100 (in Missouri 1-(800) 342-6700). The Western Union 
operator should be given Datagram Identification Number N1023 and the 
following message addressed to William D. Beckner: petitioner's name 
and telephone number, date petition was mailed, plant name, and 
publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice. A 
copy of the petition should also be sent to the Office of the General 
Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and 
to Mark Wetterhahn, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1400 L Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20005, attorney for the licensee.
    Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended 
petitions supplemental petitions and/or requests for hearing will not 
be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding 
officer or the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the 
petition and/or request should be granted based upon a balancing of the 
factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d).
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated September 12, 1994, which is available 
for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the 
Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555 and at the 
local public document room located at Government Documents Department, 
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of September 1994.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Ramon V. Azua,
Acting Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-1, Division of Reactor 
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-23332 Filed 9-20-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M